261–270 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More cynically: Roughly 2.4 tons of fuel, equating to 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions.
Fun is a good thing to spend some of our CO2 emissions budget on. We need fun. A joyless society isn't worth saving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The average US household produces 7.5 tons of CO2 equivalents per year. https://www.ccfpd.org/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/Facts_Chart.pdf
Or 15.52 tons according to worldometer. Not sure who's right here. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-co2-emissions...
It also states that using just national energy statistics (this study actually analyzed 93 million households instead) you'd arrive at 3.19 t CO2 per capita which falls in line with their results
I find it just really endearing that at companies, regardless of how many other issues they have or the dysfunctions and bland corporate culture, there are people who keep the pride of purpose and "olden days / traditions" in their memory and do things like this. Or are able to call on institutional memory of something bygone, that reappears once in a while. (whether it's a big gesture like this or small cultural day…
> there are people who keep the pride of purpose and "olden days / traditions" in their memory and do things like this. My inner cynic cannot ignore the fact that this was a planned flight, with several layers of approvals, not something a small group of enthusiasts did as an homage to the olden days. I bet this is a PR stunt and nothing else. Yes, I am very fun at parties.
The question in my mind is, what replaces the 747, and is it safe? Looks like 777X is going to replace 747. Does the 777X have the same design flaws as the 737 MAX, namely larger engine, positioned forward in way that destabilizes the airframe?
The 747 has been replaced for passenger service for decades. This isn't the first time production has been halted. The 777 has been around since the 1990s. With the 767, 777, and 787 there's really no need for the 747 anymore, especially for passenger service.
> Does the 777X have the same design flaws as the 737 MAX, namely larger engine, positioned forward in way that destabilizes the airframe?
In a word, no.
The 777X looks more like the 737NG vs the 737 Classic. It's stretched and has new wings, but the engines on the 777 were already massive. The 777 started with 330cm diameter engines and the new ones are 335cm. Given the gear arrangement on the 777 I doubt they had to move the engines forward.
Further, the 737 MAX crashes weren't directly caused by moving the engines, it was more caused by MCAS and a lack of training and explanation. Boeing tried to make the 737 MAX feel like a 737NG, but the plane itself wasn't inherently unstable.
The 777X does not have MCAS:
> Boeing stated that the 777X does not have an equivalent of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that is installed on the 737 MAX and that played a role in two crashes.
Screenshot: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmcjrYXR934QZqBuMHioRdcZEmo... On small displays this is otherwise obstructed by a cookie popup that offers only an “accept all” button. What’s even the point of the popup then?
I like Boeing and the 747 is a great aircraft and a fantastic technical achievement, but, really, this is pretty atrocious. Couldn't they have just paid FlightAware to add some data to the track? Until we get our population down to a sustainable level, this is unconscionable. Get it under a billion and we can probably afford this. Until then, definitely not.
Huh? Why would FlightAware agree to this? What would the point even be?
By that logic Boeing could just pay to have their carbon numbers falsified too. May as well falsify the population numbers too while they are at it.
You can criticize the carbon emissions but why advocate for falsifying data? They could have just... not done the flight.
Hmm. I thought all new Boeings flew out over the pacific so at the moment the customer signs the paperwork receiving the airplane, it was someplace where there would be no state or local sales tax. I'm not in the aero business myself, just repeating what I heard other, more knowledgable-sounding people said. Maybe that's not true or there's an exception for this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What’s even the point of the popup then? Complying with idiotic bureaucratic regulations. Nobody wants to be popping that thing up, but if they don't, they can get reamed by the EU.
They could just... not use tracking cookies. Then no banner is required. The real idiocy is every website wanting to hoover up data.
Cookies are a basic building blocks of websites. If you login to a legit website, there's a cookie in your browser for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe this video helps a bit to put all that twisting into perspective? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74_w3Ar9nI
There's another one from way back where they bend a 747 wing until it breaks. Definitely puts into perspective how strong a wing is.